I don't know if this is always true, but it seems like through a lot of chess history there has been a best player in the world who was noticeably better than everyone else, till the next best comes along.
Right now Magnus is really better than any of his competitors and has been for a number of years. You would think with the access to so much information that things would level off.
I thought that was the case when the post-Kasparov era started. Between the short-lived competing organizations, and the high turn-over of champions, I thought we had entered a new era. As close as they were, Kasparov was better than Karpov. Fischer was better the the rest for a few years, before his inner demons won. I can't really say Botvinnik was better than everyone else just because I don't think a lot of chess in the Soviet era was on the up-and-up. Before that there may be some room for debate. I do think Alekhine was best in the world for a while, and Capablanca was perhaps even during a bit of Alekhine's reign.
Beyond those it gets murkier. Rubinstein, Schlecter, and Tarrasch may have been best in the world for short periods of time, all during Lasker's reign.
I guess I'm asking just in general: what does this group think about the notion of a "best in the world", if there generally really has been one most of the time, and will there always be one? (but mostly I'm just trying to make conversation, and I don't know how to post a puzzle or can't think of a video or a game worth sharing to talk about)
[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun - (0 children)
[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - (1 child)
[–]FlippyKing[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)
[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)